据《科学家》（The Scientist）2017年11月7日报道，美国化学学会(ACS)已经赢得了对Sci-Hub网站非法传播其受版权保护内容的侵权起诉，该网站是由前神经科学家亚历山德拉·埃尔巴延(Alexandra Elbakyan)于2011年建立的一个科学论文免费下载、而受到广泛使用的盗版网站。2017年6月，ACS提出了反对Sci-Hub侵权行为的诉讼；2017年11月3日（当地时间周五）,美国弗吉尼亚东区地方法院法官利奥妮·布林克玛（Leonie Brinkema），对于ACS起诉Sci-Hub网站的侵权行为作出了缺席判决，判决结果对ACS的所有请求给予支持,包括480万美元的赔偿和广泛禁止提供诸如互联网服务、搜索引擎以及域名注册等侵权行为。对于Sci-Hub曾经被称为是全能文献资源下载工具。相关介绍摘引如下：
这种方法取决于网站，在有些网站上这样修改后文献会自动下载下来;而有些网站上面还需要手动点击下载pdf方可下载。这种方法，实际上就是已经在网络上找到要下载的文献, 在下载页面的网址第一级地址后面加上 ".sci-hub.org", 其它不用改变，就可以下载此文献了。另外，还有一种方法是把网址或者DOI复制到http://www.sci-hub.org或者http://sci-hub.cc/的页面上去搜索也可找到并提供下载。
American Chemical Society Wins Lawsuit Against Sci-Hub
A US judge issues a broad injunction that allows the society to demand that technology companies actively associated with the site block access to it.
November 7, 2017|
The American Chemical Society (ACS), a nonprofit scientific society and academic publisher, has won its lawsuit against Sci-Hub, a widely used pirate site for scientific papers that was established in 2011 by former neuroscientist Alexandra Elbakyan.
In June, ACS brought its case against SciHub for unlawfully disseminating its copyrighted content. Last Friday (November 3), Judge Leonie Brinkema of the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia issued a default judgement in favor of ACS, granting all of its requests, including $4.8 million in damages and a broad injunction that requires organizations such as Internet service provides (ISPs), search engines, and domain name registries that are actively associated with the site to censor it.
“It was expected that ACS would win the requested damages on the copyright infringement claim by default because Alexandra Elbakyan did not enter any kind of defense [in court],” says Peter Suber, the director of the Harvard Office for Scholarly Communication, which facilitates the university’s adoption of open-access policies. What was not expected, he adds, was that the society would be granted a broad request that could implicate entities such as ISPs and search engines.
“[This] was a very important, unprecedented, and, I think, mistaken judgement made by the court without any adversarial argument,” Suber says. “It could be fixed if the ACS ever chooses to enforce the injunction and we finally get the affected companies in court to make the case in full.”
This kind of broad order is just improper and dangerous.—Corynne McSherry,
Electronic Frontier Foundation
This latter request to block access to SciHub has raised concerns from the technology sector. In October, shortly after a magistrate judge issued recommendations for the case, the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA), which represents major technology companies such as Google, Facebook, and Intel, filed a brief opposing this part of the injunction. Judge Brinkema denied the request to enter these arguments into last Friday’s hearing, although a minor change was made in the final ruling to specifically implicate those “in active concert of participation.”
Matthew Schruers, the vice president of law and policy at CCIA writes in an email to The Scientist that the organization is encouraged by this change. However, he adds that “there’s no need to enumerate ISPs, search engines, or domain name services, any more that there would be a need to specifically enumerate Sci-Hub’s landlord or electrical utility.”
Glenn Ruskin, the director of ACS External Affairs and Communications, tells The Scientist that the injunction was not intended to apply as broadly as the CCIA had interpreted it. “It does not cover Internet search engines at large unless they have an established relationship with SciHub,” he explains. “This is only targeted at those entities or organizations that are either hosting content that Sci-Hub has stolen or has some type of an active legal relationship.”
We have clear evidence that, not only did they steal content, but they actually created a spoofed ACS website to further add false legitimacy to their operation.—Glenn Ruskin,
American Chemical Society
ACS now plans to go and look for organizations with this type of connection. One place they might start, Ruskin says, is with those that have registered SciHub domain names in the U.S. “We’re going to have to find where Sci-Hub or the content from the site that was stolen from ACS is being hosted,” he adds. “Then we’re going to need to communicate to them that we have this court ruling and that they need to take action to comply.”
Corynne McSherry, the legal director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit digital rights organization based in California, says that even the claim that domain name registries are actively participating in SciHub’s activities is “absurd,” because these companies are simply providing basic services without encouraging illegal activity. “I’m glad they are not going after the search engines, but this kind of broad order is just improper and dangerous,” she adds.
What effect, if any, this judgement will have on the pirate organization’s operations is unclear. When the publishing giant Elsevier won a default legal judgement against Sci-Hub last year, Elbakyan ignored the order to pay damages. Earlier this year, she told The Scientist the she plans to do the same in this case. In addition, even if ACS succeeds in getting American domain name registries to take SciHub down, the site can reestablish itself on domains hosted outside the U.S. Taking those sites down would require legal action in those jurisdictions. Although this is not something that ACS has yet considered, Ruskin says that “it’s something I wouldn’t take off the table.”
Even then, SciHub also operates on Tor, an anonymous network that is outside the control of typical Internet service providers. “I can’t see any technical way to shut down SciHub,” Suber says. “This is a legal attempt to shut it down, but this remedy is much worse than the disease.”
Ruskin says that one of the main purposes of this lawsuit was to gain public acknowledgement of SciHub’s illegal actions. “What we were seeking was to get an affirmative ruling from the court upholding U.S. copyright law,” he says, “We have laws, and we, in a civil society, expect those laws to be abided-here, we have clear evidence that, not only did they steal content, but they actually created a spoofed ACS website to further add false legitimacy to their operation.”